It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

UFOs in Works of Art

page: 5
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
Cicada, lost_shaman,

You two should consider joining forces and writing a monograph on this subject.

No, I’m serious.

I know you are kinda bumping heads now, but you’re both seeking the same thing (the truth) you both possess qualities that the other lacks, you both do incredible research, and you both are well written.

We are All getting tired of seeing That picture yet again every time some new starry eyed ufo nut stumbles across it. There is a plethora of art and literature in our ancient past that deserves further study, yet the same handful of stories and images keep making the rounds over and over again *sighs*

I know there are other web sites out there that attempt to do this, but the ones I’ve seen so far lack the level of research you’ve done, lack your clarity of thought, and most definitely lack your groovy writing styles.

Something to think about.

The more artwork/literature/etc. that can be reasonably eliminated from ufo folklore, the more time and energy we can spend on the less easily dismissed yet more difficult to research objects…

eeek

duty calls
twj




posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 04:45 PM
link   
1!



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
sorry… duty calls was my 19 month old daughter demanding my complete attention… now she seems to be quite happy to bang on her own key board and watch the words magically appear on the screen (as I bang away on mine *laughs*)

One of the things that interests me about ancient art and ancient literature is the concept of lore.

One item in particular is the Precession Cycle (precession of the equinoxes). Modern brainiacs can explain the precession cycle, but no modern scholar discovered it.

Knowledge of, and understanding of, the precession cycle appears in some of humanities earliest writings and artwork.

Perceiving the precession cycle is no small task. Perceiving it with nothing but the naked eye and a bent stick is truly incredible. Developing the mathematics necessary to accurately calculate the shift from one house to the next with nothing but your fingers and toes to work with is nothing short of amazing.

Despite the difficulties involved, the ancients actually managed to pull it off and pass that information down through the ages via artwork, literature, legends, stories… *shrugs* lore.

For ages the precession cycle was considered to be nothing more than astrological gibberish and it has only been in more recent times that that particular ancient “legend” was proven to be scientific fact.

Another bit of lore is the concept that a human being could fly through the sky in a heavier than air mechanical craft. This motif fills our ancient art and literature, and, again, for ages was considered to be nothing more than wishful thinking or allegorical story telling.

And yet it is now an accepted scientific fact that heavier than air mechanical devices can fly, they can carry human beings, and they can travel to the Moon and beyond.

Lore also tells that living beings descended from the skies in mechanical devices and interacted with the human race.

Currently there is no “proof” of this, just as 100 years ago there was no proof that humans could fly in machines…

but it makes me wonder.

Of course the Caduceus could just represent a witchdoctor inserting a stick into some poor souls rectum and twisting it in order to remove a tapeworm. That’s a nice Earthly, logical, safe and mundane explanation.

But I have to wonder why there are Two serpents entwined around the staff and not just one (or three) I have to wonder why the Caduceus is a symbol of not only health, but of life itself. And I can’t help but notice the striking similarity between that ancient symbol for life, and the modern symbol for dna.

None of this is proof of anything, but it’s enough that I have a doubt in the generally accept linear progression of our society and it’s technological achievements.

And it has suddenly been brought to my attention that this game has become very very boring and that it is now time to go change diapers and play with blocks…

rock on
twj



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I was searching around and noticed another "UFO" event involving Nichiren in 1270 or 1271.


You'll note that one of your links, UFOevidance.org, cites Jacques Vallee as a source for both the 1235 event and the 1271 event. I included the description of the 1271 event in my quote from "Passage to Magonia" a couple posts of mine up. The 1271 account is definitely connected to histories of Nichiren, so we can be sure that they aren't just manufactured by the CBA, but are we really ready to just toss out the 1235 event altogether?

The fact that both events occurred in September is not really that great a coincidence and Yoritsune and Yoritsuna are close but not the same thing. Yoritsuna isn't listed as a common misspelling of Yoritsune and it wouldn't really seem that Yoritsume would be a natural misspelling of Yoritsuna. The descriptions of the events and the stories around the events are completely different from one another. I still think they're separate incidents. The 1271 event is another compelling account of a historical UFO that should be investigated on its own.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
If anyone is a General it would be War Minister Nagasaki Yoritsuna, not Shogun Kojo Yoritsune.


Just to be clear though, technically Shogun translates as General. In Japan to this day they use the title Shogun for the rank of General in their military service. The War Minister Nagasaki Yoritsuna (Tairo no Yoritsuna, also called Hei no Saemon) would have been the Samurai dokoro shoshi, as he is called in your "Life of Nichiren Shonin" link. While we have both found examples of the term General being applied colloquially to describe a war leader, it does technically translate to Shogun. If the character in the 1235 account is a misconstrued Tairo no Yoritsuna, a Samurai dokoro shoshi, then we're dealing with multiple mistakes in the name and a mistake in the description of his title.



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 05:57 PM
link   
I still am open to two events.

Don't you think the similarities between the two events are uncanny?

I couldn't help but to at least put the idea on the table.

I can totally understand how the names and facts might have gotten jumbled if in fact they are.

Especially with the Yoritsume misspelling ?


BTW , Thanks for the compliment torbjon.




[edit on 13-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 08:11 PM
link   
It wasn’t really a compliment as more just a statement of fact (and a little awe)

This is, by far, the most educating and illuminating thread I’ve read since my arrival…

*rolls eyes*

for crying out loud… (literally) *sighs* I just sat down, too...

duty calls

twj


[edit on 13-1-2006 by torbjon]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 09:52 PM
link   

originally posted by torbjon
The more artwork/literature/etc. that can be reasonably eliminated from ufo folklore, the more time and energy we can spend on the less easily dismissed yet more difficult to research objects…


That is exactly right. This work is really the responsibility of the serious UFOlogist (or ghost hunter, or literal Christ proponent for that matter).


originally posted by torbjon
One item in particular is the Precession Cycle (precession of the equinoxes). Modern brainiacs can explain the precession cycle, but no modern scholar discovered it.

Knowledge of, and understanding of, the precession cycle appears in some of humanities earliest writings and artwork.

Perceiving the precession cycle is no small task. Perceiving it with nothing but the naked eye and a bent stick is truly incredible. Developing the mathematics necessary to accurately calculate the shift from one house to the next with nothing but your fingers and toes to work with is nothing short of amazing.

Despite the difficulties involved, the ancients actually managed to pull it off and pass that information down through the ages via artwork, literature, legends, stories… *shrugs* lore.


Astronomy in general and the precession of the equinox in particular are so vital to comprehending world mythological systems. This relates to some of the points that I've been stressing throughout this thread, really. In preliteral times it seems it was commonplace for technical language to be expressed through poetic concepts. This is the general (not the Shogun) area of the discussion so I'll refrain from going on and on with lots of details on a pet topic of mine. In fact you will encounter language and conceptions framed in either poetic or superstitious formats in all literature, historical document and otherwise, through the bulk of written history, to this day and into the foreseeable future. To get tricked due to reading a poetic description as a literal event is a failure at a very shallow level of investigation.

I am endlessly fascinated by the precession and the myths that developed to describe it. I don't think a lot of people even get why it is so interesting. I mean, it is antiquated, a relic of a geocentric conception of the universe, something even the most rabid of theologians has let go of. But looking at it from the perspective of the ancient astronomer, really the long lineage of astronomers, developing this invisible tool, a conceptual model for measuring time as defined by the stars, you do recognize the fingerprints of profound human genius (originally a term for an anthropomorphized portion of your thinking, like a daemon or a superego).


originally posted by torbjon
Another bit of lore is the concept that a human being could fly through the sky in a heavier than air mechanical craft. This motif fills our ancient art and literature, and, again, for ages was considered to be nothing more than wishful thinking or allegorical story telling.

And yet it is now an accepted scientific fact that heavier than air mechanical devices can fly, they can carry human beings, and they can travel to the Moon and beyond.

Lore also tells that living beings descended from the skies in mechanical devices and interacted with the human race.

Currently there is no “proof” of this, just as 100 years ago there was no proof that humans could fly in machines…


Or was the lore just focused on the concept that a human being could fly with a craft (mechanical or otherwise, steeds too) a storytelling embellishment? We can see the poetic conceptualization behind the concept to this day, it is still a popular part of the symbolic lexicon. If you could have one super power what would it be? And of course it is impossible in nature and we will never fly under our own power, only in our dreams. That heavier than air objects could fly was never the mystery. We have numerous examples of it available in nature and the study and understanding of the flight of birds, insects, etc. and that enabled us to understand how mechanical flight could be possible. The same thing can't be said of the principles necessary to allow for extraterrestrial contact. There is no natural example for us to observe. Not beyond a theoretical particle level, not yet.

Going back to the relationship between mythologies and astronomy. Were the ancients saying there were humans in the stars or were they saying the stars and planets were humans? Why would they conceive of stars and planets in this manner? To help them understand and describe better. They already understood humans, all the actions and relationships of humans. They were humans. When people misconstrue mythological descriptions of cosmological systems they are reversing the relationships in the application of symbolism.


originally posted by torbjon
Of course the Caduceus could just represent a witchdoctor inserting a stick into some poor souls rectum and twisting it in order to remove a tapeworm. That’s a nice Earthly, logical, safe and mundane explanation.

But I have to wonder why there are Two serpents entwined around the staff and not just one (or three) I have to wonder why the Caduceus is a symbol of not only health, but of life itself. And I can’t help but notice the striking similarity between that ancient symbol for life, and the modern symbol for dna.


I've actually never encountered the tapeworm explanation before. That's a pretty picture. It is an ancient medical symbol, so that certainly is an aspect of its symbolism. As you said earlier symbols are subjective (although I'd say more plastic than subjective). The astronomical explanation for the Caduceus, considering the allegorical planetary body that carries it, is the rather rapid, serpentine coiling motion of the orbit of Mercury around the sun from the vantage point of Earth. When mapped the shape is like two serpents twining about the central point of the sun. A deity holding a staff or similar object (like a sword) can be understood as being the holder of an axis between the Earth and the sun. Mercury/Hermes/Thoth is a knowledge god, and measuring the world (the universe) is part of his domain (not exclusively though, many deities representing various bodies and constellations can be described as measurers). Mercury is also a psychopomp, like his Norse equivalent Odin, and those figures should be expected to carry an identifying standard so that they can be followed. The Caduceus is all of these things, and health and life, and more, at once. The DNA similarity is striking, and it has already become folded into the symbol's connotations. The similarity between natural forms shouldn't be too stunning though. As above so below. Nature does work through patterns. Beyond the level of a whim we can't take this to mean that ancient peoples had the conditions (its not a question of capacity) for microbiological examinations. Maybe they did but big, big maybe.


originally posted by torbjon
None of this is proof of anything, but it’s enough that I have a doubt in the generally accept linear progression of our society and it’s technological achievements.


I agree 100 percent. Nature works through observable cycles.




[edit on 13-1-2006 by Cicada]

[edit on 13-1-2006 by Cicada]



posted on Jan, 13 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Don't you think the similarities between the two events are uncanny?


No. I think the similarities are anecdotal. For one thing the structures of the stories are completely different. There's no Nichiren figure in the 1235 event, and he's central to the 1271 event. The manifestations of the phenomena are completely different. Why the 36-year time warp?


Originally posted by lost_shaman
I can totally understand how the names and facts might have gotten jumbled if in fact they are.

Especially with the Yoritsume misspelling?


Maybe you can but you're going to have to address some of the whys involved to make the suggestion more convincing. I wouldn't have included the Nichiren legend in my Vallee quote (note he has even greater connections to esoteric Buddhism then Kujo no Yoritsune) if I didn't think it was related and worth investigating, but I think two separate stories should primarily have two separate examinations.



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada

No. I think the similarities are anecdotal. For one thing the structures of the stories are completely different. There's no Nichiren figure in the 1235 event, and he's central to the 1271 event. The manifestations of the phenomena are completely different. Why the 36-year time warp?


Sorry for the small talk I forgot this is strictly an antagonistic conversation.

Considering the dubious affiliation linked to our only source Yusuke J. Matsumura , the handicap of English translation and spelling, the copy and paste nature of the information involved, I could see how the two events might have been misconstrued. I mean we already have two possible dates 1235 , 1412.

The 1412 date can be found at ufologie.net... sourced also to Yusuke J. Matsumura.





Maybe you can but you're going to have to address some of the whys involved to make the suggestion more convincing. I wouldn't have included the Nichiren legend in my Vallee quote (note he has even greater connections to esoteric Buddhism then Kujo no Yoritsune) if I didn't think it was related and worth investigating, but I think two separate stories should primarily have two separate examinations.


Just a suggestion as you said , I have not drawn any conclusions about the event as of yet. I like to survey the landscape so to speak before I can decide how to argue the case. For all I know it could very well be a bunk case. I also think its completely plausible , I just as of yet have not seen anything to support the information.

Personally I don't see how Buddhism has anything to do with either case, all the people we have talked about and mentioned as of yet were Buddhists and many of them were monks as well as Samurai.

What relevance does it have that in japan Nichiren is the patron of a weird Buddhists Cult? At the time of these events he is just like everyone else , a man ,a monk who argued that one document had prevalence over another. Who almost lost his head because he refused to have the monks of his temple pray during the Mongol invasion.

[edit on 14-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 14 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   


originally posted by torbjon
The more artwork/literature/etc. that can be reasonably eliminated from ufo folklore, the more time and energy we can spend on the less easily dismissed yet more difficult to research objects…

originally posted by Cicada
That is exactly right. This work is really the responsibility of the serious UFOlogist (or ghost hunter, or literal Christ proponent for that matter).


I just want everyone to know that I too agree with this. I would rather shoot myself in the foot* than argue a bunk case as being real. ( contrary to popular belief )

This really should not be any different than UFO cases. As far as I am concerned I have no time , period! , for bunk cases.

I only argue the fact , that having seen a UFO myself, it is quite possible for UFOs to be presented in History and Art.

* When I say that about my foot I really mean it , I threw a knife straight through my foot as a child, and I figure shooting myself in the foot would be slightly worse than that. Experience matters!

[edit on 14-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:20 AM
link   

originally posted by lost_shaman
Sorry for the small talk I forgot this is strictly an antagonistic conversation.


That wasn't antagonistic. You asked me a question and I gave my honest answer. Likely we just use the word uncanny differently. I would guess that the site with the date of 1412 just has the date wrong. That is the only place I have seen with that date, but the rest of their account is the same familiar Matsumura/Vallee story.


originally posted by lost_shaman
Personally I don't see how Buddhism has anything to do with either case, all the people we have talked about and mentioned as of yet were Buddhists and many of them were monks as well as Samurai.


It's just like when we analyze a work of art dealing with Christian iconography. Understanding or a least acknowledging the theological belief system is an essential part of trying to comprehend their worldview. There's been some talk on this thread about the subjective nature of perception of symbolism. That is inherently tied to the subjective nature of perception itself, the way we believe the world works is bound to express itself in our experience of nature. You've been saying this yourself when you insist that peoples of the past experienced UFOs in the modern sense and described them as angels, etc. It is a matter of frame of reference. We're talking about historical accounts of supernatural experiences (specifically taking place in the sky). For the bulk of history the greatest source for a supernatural conception is going to be religion and folklore with the latter's point of view heavily influenced by the former's.

The Buddhism of Kujo no Yoritsune was Shingon Buddhism. Nichiren of course developed his own branch of Nichiren Buddhism. Both of these schools of Buddhist thought are modifications of the mainstream form of Buddhism in Japan in the middle ages, Tendai Buddhism. Also: Wikipedia - Tendai. The adaptive nature of Tendai incorporates various elements such as Zen and the non-Buddhist, native Japanese polytheistic theology Shinto. As we can see there is a lot to absorb for even a cursory understanding of either Yoritsune's or Nichiren's belief systems. I was raised quasi-Buddhist and I still can't say that I really understand it, but that is a distinguishing characteristic of a Buddhist system. I'm non-practicing and understanding comes from deep contemplation through the practice of attaining transcendental states of consciousness over a lifetime.

The primary distinguishing feature of Esoteric Buddhism is the timeframe involved for attaining a state of Buddha-hood. Instead of several lifetimes the Esoteric practice allows for it in as little as a single lifetime. As an esoteric system secrecy is tantamount. The true practice is only revealed to the select initiated. By design the languages of their religions are encoded in systems of symbolic description intended to prevent easy outsider interpretation. Esoteric practice in general almost always has great confusions and controversies due to a misreading of its encoded symbolism (as is the case with Gnostic Christianity and the Judaic Kabbalah).
The religious practices of both Kujo no Yoritsune and Nichiren involved meditative rituals designed to bring about an altered state of consciousness.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada
It is a matter of frame of reference. We're talking about historical accounts of supernatural experiences (specifically taking place in the sky). For the bulk of history the greatest source for a supernatural conception is going to be religion and folklore with the latter's point of view heavily influenced by the former's.



This my friend is an extreme bias.

No less the very reason I oppose most of what you are saying.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 02:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
This my friend is an extreme bias.

No less the very reason I oppose most of what you are saying.


Hmm, and you say we don't need to be antagonistic. Explain why this is an extreme bias, please. Or are you just satisfied to take a cheap and unsubstantiated shot because you're unable to support your random suppositions? You don't even make sense and you contradict yourself. The bias is yours if you insist upon believing these people held similar conceptions of reality as your own. It's called ethnocentrism and it is also incredibly anachronistic.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada

Hmm, and you say we don't need to be antagonistic. Explain why this is an extreme bias, please. Or are you just satisfied to take a cheap and unsubstantiated shot because you're unable to support your random suppositions?


A bias is a predetermined judgement that inhibits objectivity.

To say that UFOs are supernatural events that are rooted in Religion and Folklore , is a bias.

How many times on this thread have you admonished me for making generalisations?



You don't even make sense and you contradict yourself. The bias is yours if you insist upon believing these people held similar conceptions of reality as your own. It's called ethnocentrism and it is also incredibly anachronistic.


When did I say anything about ethnic superiority? Or that I believe people had similar conceptions of reality as my own?

I only post the results of my own research into the current topic. When I find new evidence , I retain the right to change my opinions. I don't call that contradicting myself.

Your arguing that UFOs are supernatural experiences rooted in religion and folklore.

I'm just arguing that while this may be true in some cases it certainly is not true for all cases. I have already stated that a large percent of Blue Book cases are attributed to natural aerial and Astronomical phenomena. Don't forget that 21% of Blue Book Cases are classified " Unknown".






[edit on 15-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 05:34 PM
link   
They look like funny shaped clouds and depiction of devine intervention liek angels or mythical flying beast.



posted on Jan, 15 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by lost_shaman
To say that UFOs are supernatural events that are rooted in Religion and Folklore , is a bias.

How many times on this thread have you admonished me for making generalisations?


Read it again. That isn't what I said. You asked why it mattered that these individuals were Buddhists and I was explaining why. If you pay attention to what I actually wrote you will see that it says the greatest source of supernatural conception (meaning the way one thinks about things) comes from religion and folklore. This is very similar to what I believed you meant when you said people described UFOs as angels, etc. I didn't say UFOs are supernatural events of religion and folklore, I'm saying the manner in which an individual perceives and understands something is through the filters of their given culture. Please pay attention to what is being said before spouting off and casting aspersions on my material. I believe this was a request I made on the very first page of this post.


originally posted by lost_shaman
When did I say anything about ethnic superiority? Or that I believe people had similar conceptions of reality as my own?

I only post the results of my own research into the current topic. When I find new evidence , I retain the right to change my opinions. I don't call that contradicting myself.

Your arguing that UFOs are supernatural experiences rooted in religion and folklore.


Being ethnocentric has nothing to do with ethnic superiority. It's a matter of viewing another culture according to the assumptions of one's own culture. While the expression of ethnocentrism is often disparaging toward the foreign culture, it does not mean that it is always about placing value judgments.

What is the evidence that you have found? To me it seems you had taken these accounts at face value until pressed by me to actually look into them in the first place and then have reacted to the information presented by raising further improvable suppositions that do not even really address the pertinent issues of the material to begin with. I know you will say this is not the case, but that is how it reads to me.

Again, I am not saying that UFOs are supernatural experiences rooted in religion. You will find that my position has been consistent throughout this thread if you care to take the time to read what I actually wrote. You wanted to know why I kept bringing up Esoteric Buddhism, as if this was some huge red herring in the investigation. Honestly, this is the first area a researcher of these accounts should explore. If you can't grasp that then you are far from being the serious UFOlogist you claim to be.

You'll note that none of this, save perhaps for the review of the life and times of Yusuke J. Matsumura, has dealt at all with what you would call Blue Book cases (and is that a bit of subtle caricaturizing on your part?). I am not aligned in any way with the Air Force or the U.S. federal government, I am not a dis-informer, I am just an individual with an appreciation for art who wants people to have accurate information at their disposal. You are very self-defensive about this topic. Despite the fact that many of these posts are addressed to you, because I am replying to comments of yours or presenting research on matters you offered as "perhaps proof" of something, this thread is not about you or your UFO experience. I honestly have no opinion on that at all. Please make sure you know what you are reacting to before flipping out on me again, thanks.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 12:44 AM
link   
I've taken sociology and the word your wanting to use is egocentric not ethnocentric.

And I have not been egocentric!

Because I mention astronomical explanations for a large percent of Blue Book cases does not imply that I think you are a government dis-informant! Where did that come from?




I have been arguing on this thread that people see strange things and have for quite some time.

If you need evidence of that then look at the Hundred year history of UFOs and strange lights reported from the Hessdalen Valley.

Then read about the aerial Phenomena found by Scientists there.

www.hessdalen.org...

So you see I have no fear of losing that argument.

As far as individual cases we should look at them on their individual merits , I agree with that. And I have not pre-researched any of these cases , and have not said that I had.

If your going to say that these types of events have influenced Religion then I'm all ears.

Am I biased?

Yes somewhat , because I have seen a UFO. So many cases that sound similar to what I witnessed I tend to think that these are not like just made up out of thin air. I can point to Hessdalen Phenomena as solid evidence that people who had reported UFOs were accurately reporting real "Unknown Aerial Phenomena".

So for me it never has been a question of whether or not Unknown Aerial phenomena/UFOs are present in Art or History.

When its all said and done we really can not say whether people 800 , or 1900 years ago saw strange lights or not , but it is definitely plausible and can not be conclusively ruled out. Unless someone else is willing to argue that UFOs and Aerial Phenomena are of E.T. origin and only recently arrived here, otherwise it is logical that people have seen and reported them and painted them in History. But thats not what you were trying to imply with this thread though is it?

Since it can be shown that "unknown Aerial Phenomena" exists and can be seen and photographed and measured, it either has always been present and seen by people , or it is something new. Which side of the fence are you on?


If you don't like the examples of reports in History that I originally gave as possible examples of accounts that likely showed up in Art , then Cicada you should offer your own examples of History or Art that you think depicts UFOs or Aerial phenomena.



[edit on 16-1-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I've taken sociology and the word your wanting to use is egocentric not ethnocentric.

And I have not been egocentric!


No, I'm talking about ethnocentrism. You are the one who is having trouble with comprehension, as has been the case throughout this thread. What I was talking about has nothing at all to do with your egocentrism and that you have misconstrued this simple matter to this level I think speaks volumes.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
Because I mention astronomical explanations for a large percent of Blue Book cases does not imply that I think you are a government dis-informant! Where did that come from?


Because I am trying to figure out why you think anything relating to the Blue Book investigations has anything to do with the clearly expressed topic of this thread. If you wish to hold a conversation on those matters start your own thread. I thought perhaps you were continuing your earlier efforts to try to categorize my analysis. I now realize that you are likely not capable of such guile.



Originally posted by lost_shaman
I have been arguing on this thread that people see strange things and have for quite some time.


No kidding. I'm not arguing about this with you because there is no revelation here. Obviously this is true. Please stop trying to take the material of my thread as an argument about this rather simple point of view that does not even relate to the topic of this thread.



Originally posted by lost_shaman
If you need evidence of that then look at the Hundred year history of UFOs and strange lights reported from the Hessdalen Valley.


I have said repeatedly that material of this nature is not a part of the agenda of discussion of this particular thread. The title of the thread is "UFOs in Works of Art". I have accommodated your "kind of maybe, sort of proof of maybe something" historical accounts lifted from an uncited UFO timeline because I find the same kind of unimaginative gullibility was involved in the misinterpretations of such things. I'm not going to address everything you throw at me as part of an argument you are only having with yourself.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
So you see I have no fear of losing that argument.


You are the only one who is even involved in your way-off-topic argument. Since it seems pretty apparent at this point that you do not understand the discussion taking place I suggest you start over on page one and read more carefully.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
As far as individual cases we should look at them on their individual merits , I agree with that. And I have not pre-researched any of these cases , and have not said that I had.


But obviously you have come upon this attitude in the c. three weeks since you presented these three cases from history as, in your own words, examples. So far we have discussed two of these cases and neither has proven to serve as an example of anything of the kind. Care to make a prediction about the merits of case number three? If this dedication to researching the veracity of accounts is a long-standing part of your method, then why didn't you research this material before presenting it as an example? Why did you not even cite your source for these accounts? Do you believe it is the responsibility of others to investigate your examples for you? By doing so I have actually done you a big favor, but I get no thanks, just insults. You claim to deny ignorance and yet you wear your ignorance for all to see with apparent pride.





Originally posted by lost_shaman
If your going to say that these types of events have influenced Religion then I'm all ears.


No, that is not what I am saying either. I'm sorry that you don't get it. It is not really that complex. It is not my responsibility to spell it out for you.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
So for me it never has been a question of whether or not Unknown Aerial phenomena/UFOs are present in Art or History.


Who cares? What you think about UFOs is not the topic of this thread. Take your sighting elsewhere so we can focus on matters pertinent to this particular discussion. By now you've had more then enough opportunity to support your claims, as poorly defined as they may be, and you have failed.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
When its all said and done we really can not say whether people 800 , or 1900 years ago saw strange lights or not , but it is definitely plausible and can not be conclusively ruled out. Unless someone else is willing to argue that UFOs and Aerial Phenomena are of E.T. origin and only recently arrived here, otherwise it is logical that people have seen and reported them and painted them in History. But thats not what you were trying to imply with this thread though is it?


And so we move back to your general argument because as we have seen you can not make your case utilizing a single concrete example other then the Sandby brothers, a matter that has not yet been explored and is in no way an event from ancient history. I'm not trying to imply anything. The point of this thread has been stated many times and is clear and easy for all to see.


Originally posted by lost_shaman
Since it can be shown that "unknown Aerial Phenomena" exists and can be seen and photographed and measured, it either has always been present and seen by people , or it is something new. Which side of the fence are you on?


I have stated many times how much value I place in generalized statements. If you want to ask people this question, which is a broad diversion from the topic of this thread, then go start one of your own. I find it quite illustrative that you think opinions on these matters separate into two distinct camps divided by a fence. How simplistic of a worldview is that?


Originally posted by lost_shaman
If you don't like the examples of reports in History that I originally gave as possible examples of accounts that likely showed up in Art , then Cicada you should offer your own examples of History or Art that you think depicts UFOs or Aerial phenomena.


Let's not distort the facts here. They were presented as example, not as possible examples. Again you place the impetus on me to present material for your argument. Do your own homework for your own topic. I don't know if there are any examples of any such thing. We sure haven't seen any yet.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cicada


No, I'm talking about ethnocentrism. You are the one who is having trouble with comprehension, as has been the case throughout this thread. What I was talking about has nothing at all to do with your egocentrism and that you have misconstrued this simple matter to this level I think speaks volumes.


I don't and have not viewed other cultures against my own ethnic group! I don't believe in the superiority of my own ethnic group! Since ethnicity has nothing to do with anything said on this thread or by me the correct word is egocentrism.

If you want to talk about misconstruing things , you have misconstrued just about everything I have said. Look back at page one and read what I wrote.




My point was that people have seen these strange things in the sky's for centuries and its completely logical to think they have been depicted in some works of Art.

Here are a few examples.



But you keep acting like I presented these as factual proven Historical accounts. That is why I have to keep repeating my original statement from page one! The same statement that you have shown was correct.

This is what else I said.




That is just three examples but there are many, many more.

If we know for fact that strange things like these that we would today consider UFO sightings are documented in History , it almost seems absurd to think they would not appear in any works of Art.


Of course you want the readers to think that I offered these as Solid Historical accounts and yet that is not what I was using these examples to show in the first place.

So if you wanted me to show you Solid historical accounts then look at Hessdalen Valley sightings.

Or look for examples that are independent of UFO time lines.


The fact that I have had to argue with you over this for over three pages speaks volumes to me!




Because I am trying to figure out why you think anything relating to the Blue Book investigations has anything to do with the clearly expressed topic of this thread. If you wish to hold a conversation on those matters start your own thread. I thought perhaps you were continuing your earlier efforts to try to categorize my analysis. I now realize that you are likely not capable of such guile.


I believe I cited that a significant percentage of Blue Book Cases had astronomical explanations after you errantly used Occam's Razor to ask what was more likely for people to have seen UFOs or for Josephus to have just made up the account.







I have stated many times how much value I place in generalized statements. If you want to ask people this question, which is a broad diversion from the topic of this thread, then go start one of your own. I find it quite illustrative that you think opinions on these matters separate into two distinct camps divided by a fence. How simplistic of a worldview is that?


That was not a generalized statement read the Scientific Papers written about Hessdalen Phenomena.



Let's not distort the facts here. They were presented as example, not as possible examples. Again you place the impetus on me to present material for your argument. Do your own homework for your own topic. I don't know if there are any examples of any such thing. We sure haven't seen any yet.



You are driving this thread , you are addressing me and distorting my position. Any attempt to validate my position is seen as off topic by you, how convenient is that?

Also by caricaturing the events being discussed and then trying to apply Occam's Razor , you make a circular argument.

"They were presented as example" , .. Yes. As examples that were likely to have been represented in Art.

Lets address the facts! People see UFOs in modern times , if you are saying they are not present in Art or History the burden of proof is strictly on you , not me.

I have provided links to Scientific evidence of UFOs seen and reported in the Hessdalen Valley for at least 100 years. Where a Scientific investigation discovered "Unknown Aerial Phenomena".

I also cite the high percentage of Blue Book Cases that were explained by astronomical phenomena.

So any argument you make about artwork that attempts to use Occam's Razor errantly to invalidate the likelihood of an actual sighting is objectionable.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
"You two should consider joining forces and writing a monograph on this subject. " == torbjon

Prior to this page (5) I noticed a synergistic relationship as well. Quite enjoyable. This page has become DRAMA
really quick. Neither lost_shaman nor Cicada will back off when they really get into the deep. lost_ shaman will
take the topic anywhere to make points while Cicada throws spit wads at every attempt to do so. How did
we get here and how do we get passed this ? Both of you seem to have common interest in research, so I would
hate to see you two become intellectual enemies. While it would be nice to have you two apologize, agree to disagree,
and let Cicada pursue the original direction. Since I do not know if you will or not, I am going to suggest an
ending by quoting both of you.

"Thanks for posting a really great thread! " lost_shaman

"Lost Shaman, Thank you for your kind words. I'm glad you enjoyed my presentation." == Cicada



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join